A Capital Idea

[David_Wright]

Yes, names like Little Blue Heron, Yellow Warbler, etc. are proper names of bird species. Little Blue Heron is the proper (English) name of the species Egretta caerulea. There are many warblers that are yellow (Wilson’s, Hooded, Blue-winged, etc., but only one is the Yellow Warbler, Setophaga petechia.

…

Indulge me here. If you just write “heron,” you don’t capitalize it, right? But Little Blue Heron you capitalize. So you’d write:

1. bird
2. heron
3. Little Blue Heron

Or, similarly, you’d write:

1. tree
2. pine tree
3. Douglas Fir

So I’m trying to match that up with grape varieties. Is “chardonnay” equivalent to heron and pine tree, or to Little Blue Heron and Douglas Fir, in those examples?

Yes, capitalizing Chardonnay indicates that you are treating it/recognizing it as a proper noun… this is the proper name of this variety of grape.

I think that most writers of English would agree that proper nouns are capitalized. But some are reluctant to recognize the formal name of a species of animal or plant as a proper noun. Even though they cheerfully do it for makes and models of automobile, toasters, even brands of underwear. Go figure.

[John_Morris]

(And you shouldn’t need capitals to make clear if you’re talking about a species or a specific bird!)

And this gets to the natural counter-argument. If the analogy that favors capitalization is that “grape” is a common noun and “Chardonnay” is the proper noun, like “man” and “Dave” are, that’s fine as far as it goes but the problem is that “Chardonnay” is not a unique individual and most proper nouns are unique individuals of whatever type of thing they are. There are lots of French, but we capitalize it as the adjective form of a proper noun because among countries there is only one France, for example. So along those lines, Rover should be capitalized but neither cocker spaniel nor dog should be. Now, I guess you can say that we don’t generally name individual grape vines, but there’s no reason we can’t. Old Grumpy could be the oldest, gnarliest zin vine in my vineyard and Old Grumpy would be a proper noun if I gave it that name, but “zinfandel” isn’t a specific individual, it’s a type. We capitalize “Lake Michigan” for example, as a specific lake, but we don’t capitalize the names of types of lakes like “freshwater lake.” Of course, none of these analogies are perfect and Cocker Spaniel has an argument for being more formal or “proper” than “freshwater lake” which would be more analogous to “hunting dog” or the like.

So it goes. Being one who is inclined to respect expertise, I think I’ll defer to the botanists here.

Except for the whole Pinot noir thing.

And, as an editor, i would say that botanists are not experts on style.

I’ve edited for a living for nearly 30 years. I’ve followed the Chicago Manual of Style at a magazine and in writing two books (publishers generally adhere to it), and Associated Press or similar styles at The Deal, Dow Jones and Bloomberg. Likewise at the law firm where I work now – except for some articles out of Europe, where we follow British style and spelling. A forthcoming book I co-authored has been switched to British spelling and style by the British publisher. So be it. There’s no single, universal set of style rules.

I would defer to botanists on capitalization when they’re writing for other botanists, but not necessarily in other contexts. Just as my current team doesn’t defer to lawyers’ desires to use “the Court” (capped) for even the lowest level of judge/court.

(The capitalization of national adjectives like “French” and “German” has always seemed like an anomaly to me – in English and among other European languages. Even German, which capitalizes common as well as proper nouns, uses lower case for the adjectives “englisch” and “französisch.” But, then, German is a pretty consistent language, and English is anything but, particularly when it comes to spelling!)

[Philip_N_Jones]

A red-winged blackbird is just that. So is a green heron. But a Bewick’s wren was named for Thomas Bewick. So the capitalization is different. The word wren does not get capitalized, even though Tom does.

[Dav3_Dyr0ff]

Just as my current team doesn’t defer to lawyers’ desires to use “the Court” (capped) for even the lowest level of judge/court.

In my own personal style manual, I’ll use “the court” to refer to the institution generally - “The court has 14 Circuit Judges and 8 Associate Circuit Judges.” We tend to use it most often as a form of address, though, when we are communicating with Judge Jones about Judge Jones - in lieu of using “you” or “Judge Jones”, and as a matter of tradition and respect. And there I always capitalize: “As the Court will recall, at the prior hearing Plaintiff’s counsel said X.” And I ain’t deferring to anyone else on that.

[Philip_N_Jones]

I vote with Dave. It is surprising how many lawyers file documents with a court and refer to the Court as the court. Bad form.
But a robin is still a robin. Actually, it is an American robin.

[Philip_N_Jones]

Someone complained that the capitalization rules are arbitrary. Of course they are. Most rules are arbitrary, but the rulemakers have got to draw the line somewhere. In this case, the line has been drawn between geographic names (proper nouns) and ordinary names (not proper nouns). That distinction is logical to some of us, but arbitrary to others. A 45 mph speed limit is arbitrary. Why not 46 mph? Gotta draw the line somewhere.

[John_Morris]

We agree on “the Court” usage. Capitalization makes sense when addressing a judge (You don’t need to capitalize “plaintiff,” though. )

But I encounter “the Court” all the time in things like, “Judge Smith of the District Court of xxx ruled that yyy. The Court reasoned that …” It’s reflexive, and unnecessary – a pathological fear of lower case!

I practiced law before becoming a journalist, so it’s fascinating to re-encounter these legal formalisms.

[Dav3_Dyr0ff]

(You don’t need to capitalize “plaintiff,” though. )

Correctly or otherwise, I have similar reasoning there as with the Court. When I’m talking about the plaintiff or the defendant in my case, as a substitute for using their proper name like Jane Jones or ABC Company, I will capitalize Plaintiff or Defendant (without the “the”) as a sort of proper pronoun if there is such a thing. When I’m summarizing some precedent, and talking about the plaintiff or the defendant in that other case, I won’t capitalize.

In addition to the grammatical reason, if there is one, it’s another respect thing. I don’t want to give the Court the impression that I’m disrespecting my opposing party by lower-casing them. I want to give the Court the impression that I’m disrespecting my opposing party by systematically refuting every aspect of his or her argument.

[PeterH]

Yes, names like Little Blue Heron, Yellow Warbler, etc. are proper names of bird species. Little Blue Heron is the proper (English) name of the species Egretta caerulea. There are many warblers that are yellow (Wilson’s, Hooded, Blue-winged, etc., but only one is the Yellow Warbler, Setophaga petechia. Capitalizing the name of a bird indicates that you are using the proper name of a particular bird species—the Yellow Warbler—and not just talking about a yellow warbler.

Editors and others who regard style guides as bibles remove the capitals because they think Yellow Warbler is a common name. They do not recognize that these are proper names of species (yet they will correct you if you write “buick riviera”).

The American Ornithological Society has formal names (proper nouns) for bird species in the US. The British Ornithologists’ Union does the same for birds in the UK. And so on.

As discussed in the other thread, that’s really a matter of taste, and ornithogists, botanists and researchers of various sorts (and lawyers) often lean toward a more formal, academic style. That makes sense in those circles. It doesn’t mean it has to be a universal style rule.

(And you shouldn’t need capitals to make clear if you’re talking about a species or a specific bird!)

It is not clear with bird names when to capitalize. Within a few minutes I read about the arrival of Caspian terns in a newsletter from the Audubon Society, and then went to their website and read about the Caspian Tern. Wikipedia goes with Caspian tern, FWIW. (usually not much)

[lleichtman]

Those with an academic bent or an interest in botany insist that plant types require capitalization.

Interesting. This I don’t recall hearing before. Is this true in other scientific specialties? Do academic zoologists capitalize animal names like Tiger or Elephant? Do academic chemists capitalize Oxygen and Carbon?

Puzzled pedants want to know these things.

Tiger capitalizes when it’s Woods.

[GregT]

The names of grapes are capitalized. They are cultivars. A cultivar is a plant that has been selected and cultivated and named.

The grapes are not varietals. “Varietal” is an adjective. You don’t drink adjectives. It’s like saying I’ll drink a blue.

With plants, people often use the scientific or Latin name, and soon that gets turned into a common name and treated as an English word. An example is when you go to the garden shop and they talk about asters. Originally it’s a Latin name. but Latin doesn’t make a plural by adding “s”. So when they talk about asters, it’s not the Latin name “Aster” any more. The Latin name turned into a regular English word, so English language rules apply and you add “s” to make it plural.

But when we talk about the oak for your barrels, we say Quercus alba, which is the Latin name for white oak. You don’t say you will plant a quercus albas.

When you talk about the tomato Lemon Boy, which I just planted, or Early Girl, you capitalize them because they are not generic tomatoes but they are specific cultivars. In the same way Merlot or Syrah are capitalized - they’re not generic grapes, they’re specific cultivars just like Early Girl is a tomato cultivar.

[John_Morris]

The names of grapes are capitalized. They are cultivars. A cultivar is a plant that has been selected and cultivated and named.

Yea, but you graft branches on fruit trees, so it’s no surprise you take the botanists’ side in this.

[RichardFlack]

The names of grapes are capitalized. They are cultivars. A cultivar is a plant that has been selected and cultivated and named.

The grapes are not varietals. “Varietal” is an adjective. You don’t drink adjectives. It’s like saying I’ll drink a blue.

……

Actually in Canada people do drink a Blue. Often more than one. Popular beer made by Labatt.

Not sure if this helps

[Philip_N_Jones]

The style manuals say that the names of grapes are not capitalized, unless they are named for a person or place. Persons and places are proper nouns. Grapes are not. The same with birds, trees, animals, fish, etc. Copper River salmon, for example. American robin. And red-winged blackbird.
And dictionaries say that varietal can be used as either an adjective or a noun.

[Dav3_Dyr0ff]

And dictionaries say that varietal can be used as either an adjective or a noun.

Last time I checked, and I’m not checking again, some did and some didn’t.

And some of those who listed it as a noun listed the only noun meaning as a varietal wine, choosing not to list it as an acceptable substitute for “variety” when referring to a grape, while there are indeed some who say its noun meaning can also be a grape variety.

Of course, some Dictionarists are quicker than others to ensconce common errors in the big book just because they are common. They are still errors. It depends, I suppose, on how they see their mission - as educating folks on correct English, or as accurately describing the language as it is often, even if incorrectly, used by the populace.